IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.2967 of 2010
1. SHASHIKANT PRASAD S/O MANDHATA PRASAD S/O BARI
SANGAT, NAWRIAGHAT, PO- JEHABANAD P.SJEHABAD, DISTT-
JEHANABAD
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR CUM
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JEHANABAD
2. COLLECTOR CUM DISTT. MAGISTRATE, JEHANABAD,
3. DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT DY COLELCTOR, JEHANABAD
-----------
2. 31.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
State.
The petitioner is stated to be a Clerk. He is
aggrieved by the order dated 1.12.2009 declining to grant him
1st and 2nd A.C.P. on the ground that he had not cleared the
Departmental Accounts Examination.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
the petitioner was a Clerk and did perform accounts related
work. There can be no compulsion for him outside his routine
duty to clear the departmental examination in Accounts.
Counsel for the State relied upon the Bihar State
Employees Conditions of Service Conditions (Assured Career
Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003 framed under Article 309 of
the Constitution of India. He submits from Clause 4(5) that
passing of the Department examination shall be essential
even for grant of A.C.P. benefits. Supporting the impugned
order, it was submitted that the petitioner not having cleared
the Departmental Accounts Examination is not eligible to be
considered for grant of A.C.P.
2
The writ petition does not raise any plea that the
petitioner as a Clerk did not perform accounts related work
and there was no other departmental examination prescribed
for grant of A.C.P. benefits to him. In absence of a specific
assertion by the petitioner on these aspects, this Court finds
it difficult to adjudicate whether passing of the Departmental
Accounts Examination in accounts or any other paper was a
pre-requisite or not. If the petitioner had raised a specific
challenge that there was no requirement to pass a
Departmental Accounts Examination or any other
examination, the respondents then would perhaps have dealt
with it appropriately in their counter affidavit read in context
of the grounds mentioned in the impugned order of rejection.
If so advised, the petitioner may raise this specific
issue before the respondents in light of the impugned order
dated 1.12.2009. If he does so, this Court directs the
respondents to consider and dispose off the aforesaid
representation by a reasoned and speaking order within a
maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
and/or presentation of a copy of this order.
The writ application stands disposed.
P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)